Hobby Lobby Hysteria and Unchallenged Hyperbole

It didn’t take long, following the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby earlier this week, for many liberals to explode into full-fledged hysteria mode.

The Internet predictably flared up with venom-fueled, breathtakingly irresponsible claims of companies now having the right to ban their female employees from using birth control. The assertion was utter nonsense of course, but that didn’t stop people like actor James Morrison (from the television show 24) from making statements like this:

“SCOTUS ruling is as perverse/abusive as a man who beats his wife/girlfriend. Crime of ignorance, violence, assertion of male power/dominance.”

God bless Hollywood.

So let me get this straight… Ruling that a company shouldn’t be forced to provide free birth control to its employees is the same as a man physically beating up a woman? How could someone so intellectually bankrupt have ever been in charge of CTU?

The reality, of course, is that the Supreme Court’s ruling did not deny contraception access to anyone. What the court ruled was that the owners of a closely held company, who have religious objections to providing contraceptives or abortifacients through their insurance policies, can’t by forced to do so by the government. Employees of companies who choose not to provide them are free to acquire the desired contraceptives or abortifacients on their own – just like before the Affordable Care Act (when few felt they were being victimized by the inconvenience).

In Hobby Lobby’s case, the company was already providing contraceptive coverage to their employees before the Affordable Care Act ever mandated that they do so. Their objection wasn’t to contraceptives (of which they are perfectly willing to continue covering 16 types), but rather to abortifacient (causing an abortion) drugs.

Now, I wouldn’t expect people like Mr. Morrison and the rest of the unenlightened-and-angry Internet crowd to be held accountable for their hyperbole, other than simply being mocked by others on the Internet. It would be a waste of time. Their words might be infectious to like-minded ideologues, but such people have relatively little public influence.

But what about those people who do have great influence in our society, like our elected leaders? If they aren’t challenged when they make the same type of completely over-the-top statements, by the people whose job it is to do so, how can that be anything but dangerous to a democracy?

Senator Elizabeth Warren wrote that she couldn’t believe “we live in a world where we’d even consider letting big corps deny women access to basic care based on vague moral objections.”

Fortunately, we don’t live in that world. What Warren said was an outright fabrication – one that I’ve seen no one outside of the conservative media challenge.

Senator Patty Murray called the ruling “a dangerous precedent and takes us closer to a time in history when women had no choice and no voice.”

Has Murray been asked by anyone in the media to qualify that remark? How has the ruling, in any way, taken us closer to that era?

Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself, in her written dissent, outright lied about what the ruling meant: “In a decision of startling breadth…the exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga… would deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage that the ACA would otherwise secure.”

Why isn’t this line of bologna a story in itself? No woman will be denied whatever contraceptives she chooses to purchase. And shouldn’t the fact that Planned Parenthood is using this very quote to build political support and raise contributions also get some press?

Speaking in my home state of Colorado on Monday, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made this comment on the Hobby Lobby ruling at the Aspen Ideas Festival: “It is a disturbing trend that you see in a lot of societies that are very unstable, anti-democratic, and frankly prone to extremism… Where women and women’s bodies are used as the defining and unifying issue … because of their religion, their sect, their tribe, whatever.”

One would think that a likely 2016 presidential candidate comparing the inconvenience of having to pay for one’s own contraceptives to Sharia law would be a major new story. Nope. Crickets.

This of course all goes back to the prevalent problem of liberal media bias in this country. The mainstream media makes Republican leaders answer for their hyperbolic statements, as well they should. When an elected leader spreads utter, vitriolic nonsense to the public, they absolutely should be challenged. By not extending that level of scrutiny to the Democrats, however, the media lets completely false narratives saturate down into the electorate, and become accepted talking points that are repeated to no end. And the media, unfortunately, sees nothing wrong with that because they like the results.

If they did see something wrong with it, and did their job, no one could conveniently omit the word “illegal” from the term “illegal immigration” and still be taken seriously. No one would snidely call the Benghazi YouTube video and the IRS targeting of conservative groups “phony scandals,” and still be respected. Lying to the public a couple dozen times about the Affordable Care Act letting people keep their insurance plans and doctors wouldn’t be a forgivable offense. Accusing someone of being a racist would trigger requests for evidence of such, beyond merely a hunch. Basing a “Republican War on Women” on the moronic comments of two candidates, who were immediately castigated afterward by the GOP, would be met with eye-rolls.
To me, the notion that the Supreme Court ruled to ban women from using contraceptives sits at the same level of lunacy as the notion that President Obama was born in Kenya. Yet, there’s a stunning discrepancy in the way the media’s treating it.

The further accepted wisdom drifts from the truth, the worse off we are as a society. Unfortunately, the conveyers of news in the mainstream media only recognize this when those who are being untruthful have an “(R)” next to their name.

About John Daly

John Daly couldn't have cared less about world events and politics until the horrific 9/11 terrorist attacks changed his perspective. Since then, he's been deeply engaged in the news of the day with a particular interest in how that news is presented. Understanding the importance of the news media in a free society, John has long felt compelled to expose media injustices when he sees them. He is the author of the Sean Coleman Thriller series, and lives in Northern Colorado with his wife and two children.
Follow John on Facebook and
Twitter.Author website: http://www.johndalybooks.com/

If this becomes the rally cry of the democrats for the upcoming mid-terms and 2016 election, this could be a disaster for them depending upon the GOP candidates. In Minnesota that is strongly democratic but also fairly religious, this decision
by SCOTUS has become a game changer amongst independent and religious female democrats who clearly understand the ruling.

If the GOP candidates can communicate the facts on this case efficiently, this decision by SCOTUS could be a major factor to win seats in congress and the presidency.

Brian Fr Langley

I might say the logic of the left is truly daunting, although it does appear there is method to the madness. What we’re all really talking about is the complete decoupling of sexual intercourse from it’s primary purpose. (Which of course is procreation). Not surprisingly, this is also the goal of many left wing objectives, abortion on demand, condoms in schools, young teenage birth control including the morning after pill without parental consent, and of course gay marriage. So what stragetic objectives might this decoupling accomplish? They actually do have something in common, the utter and absolute destruction of the traditional two parent family. Though we deny it mightily, our quest for orgasmic experiences still leads to babies. And herein we find an epic clash of human rights. (and I might point out the moral collapse of the republic). It seems for many millions of Americans (including 4 Supreme court justices) a woman should enjoy an unfettered right to sexual irresponsibility. The concern for herself, (and the state it seems), should be primarily about the adventure (and the big O), not the consequences of nature. Nature though is a “bitch” (with a capital B) and pouring forth (just as nature intended) are millions upon millions of unhappy little consequences. And what about their rights? Deeply ingrained in the Judeo-Christian ethic (which is the bedrock of the American experience) are found two transcendent and definitive rights. The right to life, and the right, to be raised by ones own two parents (assuming they both live). By definition, a republic protects the rights of the few against predations of the mob. While the mob screeches for sex without consequences, millions of America`s children who are aborted or abandoned are left to speak for themselves. Unhappily for them they don`t have a vote, but once upon a time, they had a republic.
The equation could not be simpler. The destruction of the traditional family is also the destruction of the republic. There really is method to the madness.

Hobby Lobbyist

Oh Brian! You aresoanal I could kiss you! Nothing wrong with you that an orgasmic experience wouldn’t cure!

brickman

It’s not as much hyperbole as all the posts that I read accusing the Obama Administration of blackmailing John Roberts over the Obamacare decision.

http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

I’ve never read one of those that wasn’t in jest.

brickman

You must never go on the Real Clear Politics site, those people are serious and wanted Roberts impeached.

http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

I just usually go there for polling data; not for the discussions.

My argument isn’t that hyperbole only exists on one side of the aisle. My column made that clear. My argument is that the media largely lets liberal hyperbole go unchecked.

You don’t hear Republican politicians and other leaders claiming that John Roberts was blackmailed. The media would never let something like that stand.

You do, however, hear all kinds of Democratic politicians saying that the SCOTUS ruled to take away a woman’s right to get contraceptives. And these false claims routinely go unchallenged by the media. That’s in large part WHY these politicians are so at ease making such statements in the first place – media compliance.

Remember how the media responded to Sarah Palin’s “death panels”? Why aren’t we seeing that same level of scrutiny given to the comments of Clinton, Ginsburg, and Warren?

I think we both know the answer.

brickman

You might like to read the discussions on RCP, it will broaden your horizons. The only watchdogs that I see bringing conservative hyperbole into focus are Stewart and Colbert. They do a good job .Recently they went after Brian Kilmeade’s criticism of Bowe Bergdahl’s father’s beard in a humorous way. I notice that your site attacks liberal hyperbole all the time. Right, Eleanor Cliff? RCP skewered her too. She deserved it. If you are not as popular as Stephen and John , that’s the market speaking.

http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

>>You might like to read the discussions on RCP, it will broaden your horizons.

>>The only watchdogs that I see bringing conservative hyperbole into focus are Stewart and Colbert.

Really? You’ve seen no one else scrutinizing the rhetoric of Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Allen West, etc? You saw no one else shooting down the Birther movement and the words of Donald Trump? Mitt Romney couldn’t even say “binders of women” or put a dog in a kennel on top of his car without a generating a news media obsessions over it. I’m thinking it’s not my horizons that need the broadening.

>>I notice that your site attacks liberal hyperbole all the time.

We do… in large part because the national news media does not.

>>If you are not as popular as Stephen and John ,that’s the market speaking.

Popularity shouldn’t trump the truth. I’m talking about the news media, not the entertainment media.

Serious question: Can you give me an example of the Republican party doing something equivalent to removing the “illegal” portion of “illegal immigration” from the immigration debate, and not being called out on it by the media? Do you think for a second that if the Republicans routinely referred to people who use prescription drugs as “drug users,” the news media wouldn’t call them out on it?

brickman

The news media IS the entertainment media. Same thing. Please tell me the

difference between Sybil the Soothsayer
in the movie Network and Bill O’Reilly

bringing on a “body language expert” to analyze the news or Dr. Aglow psychoanalyzing Barack Obama. Offering analysis of patients you never have met used to get your license revoked but not today.

http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

Squirrel!

brickman

I am not here to defend liberal democrats, I keep telling you that I’m a moderate. I once won political office as a Republican in blue state, blue county, Middlesex County NJ.. I am of the pox on both houses inclination. I dispute you because although as an aside you will criticize the Right. You never do it with the conviction that you do the left. That is your right but I get to point it out.

http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

Brickman, the reason I suspect you’re a liberal is because you use the left’s attack lines, and you almost never criticize the left. If I’m wrong about you, I’m wrong… but anyone reading the stuff you post here would have serious trouble believing you’re a middle-of-the-road guy.

And you’re right. I don’t go after the right with the same conviction that I go after the left because they don’t give me as much reason to. When I see people on the right say and do stupid or wrong things, I write about it. I’ve written A LOT about it.

But they aren’t the ones burdening the country far beyond its limits, pitting Americans against each other along racial and gender lines, lying about how Americans were killed to win re-election, using the IRS to target political opponents, and turning us into an ineffectual joke on the world stage. Those things bother me A LOT more than problems I have with the GOP.

I’m a fiscal conservative, a “peace through strength” guy on foreign policy, and essentially a libertarian on social issues. That’s the perspective I write from.

brickman

You’re right I don’t go after the left as much as I do the right but I do go after them when they’re stupid. I’m mostly on rightwing blogs because I like using discus and most lefty blogs seem to use Facebook. I don’t want to give Facebook all the info they require.

You say righties don’t cause you the trouble that lefties do. Come on the sites that I go on. I never see lefties advocate casrtrating the President, shooting the President, hanging the President and Hilary or advocating the violent overthrow of the government and the murder of other Americans. I assume that the sites report this to the Secret Service but I see the culprits post over and over. More disturbing is the upvotes they get while discussing what caliber bullets they will use.And speaking of hyperbole everything is leading to the “death of our republic”. All this on legitimate sites , not neo-nazi or kkk sites.

I am sorry that you think I’m a liberal, I’m a moderate. I only seem liberal to you because the blogosphere is so far right.I am a ” peace through strength guy too and I served in the Army in the Air Defense Artillery pointing missiles with nuclear capacity at our enemies You?

Integrity

I think there is a huge difference between those that are making policy for our country or getting spotlighted in the news from the lunatic trolls that anonymously post their garbage on Internet sites. I have often witnessed some very nasty comments from BOTH sides of the political spectrum. Any military service is commendable. Are you using your military service as a talking point to invalidate John’s opinion?

brickman

No. Just pointing out my commitment regarding peace through strength. As far as I know not one of the leading contenders for the Presidency in either party has served in the military but I wouldn’t say their opinions are invalid.

Jeff Webb

>>How do you feel about people blocking buses trying to force the government from doing its jobs?<<

Force the government FROM doing its jobs? Turning those buses around and heading back to San Ysidro was the closest this govt has come to really doing its job in years.

What exactly makes you think he’d oppose allowing planeloads of illegal aliens into the country like his ally, Barack Obama, has?

brickman

Ayers believed ( maybe still) that his motivations trumped law. Exactly like the people who blocked the buses in CA.

Jeff Webb

>>Ayers believed ( maybe still) that his motivations trumped law.<>Exactly like the people who blocked the buses in CA.<<

Whatever their motivations, your disgust would be put to better use if you aimed it at the guy who blatantly refuses to enforce laws he's required to.

brickman

As someone who was elected to office and actually has written laws, I know that sections are inserted dealing with executive actions regarding the laws implementation. I’m not an expert on the laws that Obama is accused of disregarding but if there is no legal justification for it , he should face congressional action. Maybe the suit Boehner is bringing will settle the issue, but until now the only congressional action has been whining.

Not in favor of either one. What is your opinion on people who bombed buildings in protest to the Vietnam war? I am of the opinion that our Government is overreaching in many areas while criminally negligent in the areas in which it should be acting. QED

brickman

They should be held to pay for the crime of bombing. If we allow people a “conscience” out for criminal acts. There is no law.

http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

>>I think there is a huge difference between those that are making policy
for our country or getting spotlighted in the news from the lunatic
trolls that anonymously post their garbage on Internet sites.

Agreed.

Walter Peck

“I never see lefties advocate casrtrating the President, shooting the President, hanging the President and Hilary”

Sorry but I went down several hundred comments and never saw anyone threaten to castrate him, hang him from a lamp post or put him front of a firing squad with other posters drooling over what bullets to use. There are some distasteful comments but more comments castigating those comments. When I go on sites that threaten to kill Obama , NO ONE chastises those posters. I expect the Sciafe post to be a mild counterpoint to posts after Ted Kennedy died.

I also will not see an article in the Daily Caller called “10 Women Richard Mellon Sciafe didn’t kill 44 years ago”.

Walter Peck

“Sorry but I went down several hundred comments and never saw anyone threaten to castrate him, hang him from a lamp post or put him front of a firing squad with other posters drooling over what bullets to use.”

That’s not surprising since he is already dead.

“There are some distasteful comments but more comments castigating those comments.”

That’s from CNN. It’s not a full-blown lefty site. Most of the castigating comments (the poster jim perez being a stand out exception) appear to be from right wingers.

We can go back and forth all day about this side saying this or that. It won’t change the left wing’s dangerous embrace of repressive tolerance.

brickman

Just for the hell of it I Googled Mother Jones and Richard Mellon Sciafe . I found three articles before his death. No one threatened him in any comments and the worst he was called was a liar in a comment. Maybe, Mother Jones isn’t lefty enough for you?

Walter Peck

Just for the hell of it, I skimmed through the comments on some Breitbart articles and didn’t see any death threats.

You’re doing a nice job sidestepping into “which side has worse anonymous internet comments,” which doesn’t have anything to do with the article.

brickman

You mean the Breitbart that went on Twitter the morning that Ted Kennedy died and called him 1) a big a** motherf***er 2) a duplicitous b*stard and 3) a pr*ck4) he also wrote that Ted Kennedy was a special pile of human excrement.

You brought up Richard Mellon Sciafe’s death please show me a similar tirade by any leftie journalist.

http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

You mean the same Ted Kennedy who left Mary Jo Kopechne to die? You see… We can keep playing this game, but you do realize that we’ve gotten to a point in this discussion where it no longer has anything to with the arguments I made in my column, right?

brickman

I didn’t bring up Richard Mellon Scaife’s death as an example of bad behavior by posters but when I point out that the abuse the right piled on Ted Kennedy was worse I AM THE ONE CHANGING THE SUBJECT. That is my point. Why were Walter Peck’s comments not changing the subject? I missed your post telling him that.

Walter Peck

You already had changed the subject. I challenged your assertion that the left has a moral high ground. You did a nice job of fooling me into believing you had an ounce of objectivity so I thought you might actually acknowledge that *gasp* the left wing was capable of wrong doing.

That was my mistake.

brickman

Enough of your straw man argument. The left is capable of wrong doing. OK. I’m just pointing out that in the blogosphere the right is way worse and won’t admit it. If you can link me to a “castrate Bush” comment feel free.

Walter Peck

The article is about the MSM, not the blogosphere.

brickman

Which you guys keep telling me that no one watches.

Walter Peck

Speaking of straw man, I never said that.

That would be incorrect. No one watches MSNBC, but that’s not to be confused with CNN or especially the three networks.

brickman

Is actor James Morrison part of the MSM since much of the article talks about him? I personally have no idea who he is.

Walter Peck

He was part of the setup, not the overall point.

“Their words might be infectious to like-minded ideologues, but such people have relatively little public influence.”

http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

>>He was part of the setup, not the overall point.

Exactly, and again… this is what makes me suspect of brickman. He uses the debate tactics of the left, and is far too defensive of that side of the aisle to not have a dog in the hunt.

brickman

I learned my debate tactics in St. Ambrose elementary school in Old Bridge NJ . I don’t support liberals only oppose the Right. Too subtle for you?

http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

Much of the article talks about him? Uh, no. And he was merely an example of the shameless Internet hyperbole on the SCOTUS ruling. Did you miss the part where I wrote that I didn’t expect the Internet crowd to be held accountable, but that I DID expect our elected leaders and policy makers to be?

brickman

Seven paragraphs. Although some were one sentence.

http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

Try 6 SENTENCES that had anything to do with him in my entire column. Are you doing a Bob Beckel impersonation?

brickman

Do I sound drunk?

http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

No. Just liberal. 😉

brickman

How can I be a liberal, John? I think the hobby lobby issue is small potatoes although when some Muslim owned company tries to enforce Sharia, I await your comments. I am pro death penalty, pro life, a capitalist, served in the military, want the US to win any wars we fight, hate identity politics, supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, believe in an individual right to bear arms and a host of other anti liberal positions. I just don’t swallow Rush Limbaugh’s line. So sue me. The fact that you have NEVER heard me say a word of praise for Obama, other than that he was better than McCain and Romney should cause even you to think.

http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

>>How can I be a liberal, John?

I honestly couldn’t care less if you are or not, brickman. Some of my best friends are liberals. Like I said, I just find it odd that you choose to trash the right in practically every post, using the left’s trademark tactics, then claim you’re somewhere in the center.

BTW, If you think the most liberal president of our lifetime was a better choice than relatively moderate Republicans like McCain and Romney, it’s kind of hard to take the question, “How can I be a liberal?” seriously.

BTW2: No response to the “Castrate Bush” links I gave you? I can give you many, many more if you like.

brickman

As re BTW 2 just saw them other than yahoo answers I never heard of any of them and no one else has either. I was talking about “castrate Obama” or kill/shoot Obama on mainstream sites like Real Clear Politics, Washington Examiner, Michelle Malkin ( although her crowd tends to better behaved), the Federalist, Politico and the Hill.

Although I respect John McCain he is no moderate and he calls himself a conservative. Mitt Romney calls himself “severely conservative” unless you think that they are
liars. I do trash the Right but have no idea what you’re talking about leftist tactics.

As I said I learned to debate in a conservative Irish Catholic grammer school in NJ.My politics are in the center but it is true that I don’t like what passes for the right in today’s America.

http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

You’re seriously trying to narrow your argument down so tightly that you’re now distinguishing between “mainstream” sites and “not mainstream” sites? Do you have any idea how many fewer “mainstream” discussion sites there were under Bush than there are now?

And that above link is just for a single, specific sentence. Imagine all of the additional ones that would come up with a few variations thrown in.

The argument you’re trying to make doesn’t hold water.

>>Although I respect John McCain he is no moderate and he calls himself a conservative.

You’re half right. He’s a moderate who calls himself a conservative. So is Romney. Unfortunately, every politician feels the need during primaries to assure their base that they’re sufficiently conservative or liberal.

Yes, and I gave you a specific list of what I’m talking about. Thus, I’m not sure why this discussion, again, is about to going back to Internet nuts instead of political figures.

>>Come on
the sites that I go on. I never see lefties advocate casrtrating the
President, shooting the President, hanging the President and Hilary or
advocating the violent overthrow of the government and the murder of
other Americans.

This is Real Clear Politics you’re seeing this stuff on? Shocking to say the least, but also shocking was when I saw the same time of stuff written by liberal nuts about George W. Bush when he was in office.

>>More disturbing is the upvotes they get while discussing what caliber bullets they will use

If you’re honestly seeing this stuff, you should report it to the Secret Service yourself.

>>I only seem liberal to you because the blogosphere is so far right.

The blogosphere is so far right? Are you serious? Conservatives have merely caught up to liberals on the Internet.

Glad to hear we agree on foreign policy. Thanks for your service. I never served but am very appreciative of those, including my family, who have and still do.

Walter Peck

One of the worst parts of all this hysteria is the lack of memory. As you said, Hobby Lobby (and many others employers) already sponsored plans that covered contraception without an ACA mandate. We’ve already seen the “Dark Ages” on this. It was called “Before 2010”

Bernie's Premium Newsletter

Are you frustrated with the wussification of America? Bernie is too. Sign up for free exclusive content that we can't post on the site.